NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Monday, November 21, 2016

Special Thanksgiving Edition

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Here's a generous portion of free space on which to post more comments without anything getting lost (for now). And by the way, if you suspect a comment of getting lost, be sure to go to the bottom of the page and click on Load More. The blog software has room for only so many comments on a single page. If you still can't find your comment, email me and I'll post it for you.

This may be my fault, Anon; I rode this hobby horse for a while early this year or late last when I re-read in Steve Thomas's book that Officer Wickman saw Mindhunter in the Ramseys' bedroom, and I recalled reading in it years ago that one of Douglas's main points was that a murder reflects the personality of the murderer. From there I went off on a tangent, postulating that John's staging included lurid details about beheading and small foreign factions because it was the antithesis of his own cool, collected CEO persona, and tied it all into my notion that the murder was premeditated eight days in advance.CC

Patsy made three after hours calls to the pediatrician, between 5:00 and 6:00 PM, on December 17, eight days before the murder. I do not believe an experienced mother would panic over a sore throat or a cold. JBR had seen Dr Beuf five times recently for vaginitis, I think she had yet another infection and Patsy was finally panicking.

Dr Beuf's treatment to that pointed had not included a pelvic exam, but after a sixth recurrence, that possibility after their return from Charlevoix and the cruise had to have been very real, information Patsy would have shared with her husband. Dr Beuf was a mandated reporter, required by law to report any findings of child sexual abuse to Child Protective Services, and John stood to lose his family, social standing, business, and possibly his freedom. I think the idea first crossed his mind that night, and he had a week to form a plan. CC

Ahhh yes, of course. Thanks for that, CC, it does make a lot of sense. That John could give his daughter a new bike that morning, eat a Christmas breakfast with her and tuck her into bed that evening, knowing it would be her last Christmas, is just mind boggling. If her murder was indeed premeditated over a week in advance, John is absolutely devoid of any human emotion. He is a monster.

I think he is a narcissistic, sociopathic monster with a sense of entitlement when it comes to sex, and an unhealthy preoccupation with beauty pageants - he married a beauty queen, abused a tiny one, allegedly had an affair with a woman in Arizona he had dress up in gowns, and has now married a woman who designs pageant costumes.

I find nothing benign or forgivable about this guy, and unlike Doc, have no trouble believing he used Patsy's paintbrush deliberately, may have mimicked her handwriting, and encouraged his socially impaired son to appear on Dr Phil, knowing exactly how bad it would make the boy look, particularly in contrast to his own well-spoken, urbane facade. Perhaps Doc has not known enough monsters; I spent three years prosecuting nothing but.CC

Here, Miss D, I can try to illustrate my conviction that much more of John's plan was deliberate than most people believe:

The paintbrush/garrote was an unnecessary flourish, designed to suggest a "foreign faction" or to draw attention to Patsy, or both. A stick is not necessary to accomplish ligature strangulation. Take a cord, a shoelace, a long scarf, what have you, and form a loop. Now mimic putting this over the head and around the neck of a victim. Pass one end of the cord through the loop, then pull on the free ends with both hands, tighten and hold. Death in five minutes or less.

The garrote was entirely superfluous, but it was there for a reason. Or two.CC

I've always thought that - even though strangulation was the goal, ultimately, in order to end JB's life - the garrote, itself, was unnecessary. Seemingly superfluous, but entirely necessary if your scenario is to be believed. The garrote has always been what bothered me the most regarding the case. Along with the fact there were so many amazing coincidences in regards to the Ramsey murder and the Mind Hunter book next to John's bed.....and yet, the very author of the book was fooled by John's bullshit, and actually supports his innocence. He attests that the details of the crime scene don't match up with the personality of John or Patsy, even though he outlines exactly how to stage a murder scene in a manner that diverts attention away from the actual murderer! How can he be so blind? The entire investigation is a sham. A joke. Of course, John will never be charged, not short of a confession, and that's never going to happen - he is tickled that he got away with murder (you can almost see the beginning of a smile on his lips whenever he talks about it), and I'm sure it's only fueled his narcissistic personality disorder. He's always suspected he was invincible, and now there's no doubt. I don't doubt any detail of your scenario, CC.

The use of Patsy's paintbrush might suggest her involvement rather than his. You've seen the crime scene photos of that godawful basement - surely he could have found some other, more innocuous instrument? A #2 pencil would have done nicely, and suggested no one in particular. CC

Before I write this, I am completely aware of it being pure speculation. In the last thread I wrote how I believed the window was broken by either Burke or JB throwing a baseball or an object.....then looking through the crime scene photos, what do I see? It looks like a baseball to me in the photo link below right next to the red chair......anybody have thoughts?

When you see a break in a window in a space adjacent to a crime scene, then it would seem obvious that either this is a point of entry or exit for an intruder -- or the staging of same. And when a suitcase that doesn't belong there is seen flush against the wall just under the window, accompanied by packing peanuts from the window well strewn on the floor beneath the window, then I'm sorry but it's hard to imagine that this window got broken by some kids playing around in the basement.

Not if this whole thing was an accident that resulted in a cover up. Your theory is just that John did it as part of the staging, only to quickly unstage it the next morning. Maybe it was quickly unstaged because he wasn't aware of it.

Most of its "stange-little-known-facts" are either ones most on here are already familiar with and/or ones people use to confirm their own biases. (e.g. Burke spread his feces on walls and JonBenet wet the bed, therefore BDI.) One fact, if accurate, was new to me however:

"In the basement where JonBenet was found, a blue suitcase rested by the wall directly below the broken window where an intruder may have sneaked in. Patsy Ramsey insisted that the suitcase didn’t belong to anyone in the family.Instead, she said that the killer must have brought it to stuff JonBenet’s body inside. However, the suitcase belonged to John’s eldest son, John Andrew, and the things inside were incredibly unnerving.Inside were a semen-encrusted blanket and a book by Dr. Seuss. At the time, John Andrew was a childless college student, far too old to be reading Dr. Seuss. But the semen on the blanket was proven to be his by a DNA test.The police didn’t take the suitcase investigation much further, though. They had already removed John Andrew from the list of suspects because they were confident that he wasn’t in town when the murder happened."

then:

"The police knew that John Andrew wasn’t in town when the murder happened because they asked his mother, Lucinda. After JonBenet’s death, detectives flew to Atlanta where Lucinda lived with her new husband. The police questioned Lucinda and talked to family friends. When the police left, they were confident that John Andrew and Melinda, John Ramsey’s children with his first wife, could be removed from the list of suspects. However, newspapers reported that John and Patsy wanted to “support” Lucinda. So the couple flew as quickly as possible to Lucinda’s home to be with her when she spoke to the police."

This report has to be incomplete. Did the police bother talking to John Andrew themselves? Why would John fly out to "support" his ex-wife if all the police needed was confirmation John Andrew wasn't in Boulder the night of the murder? Did the police dismiss the entire contents of the suitcase as potentially relevent to the case simply because the blanket had semen stains belonging to a "Ramsey" who wasn't the murderer? Were there finger prints on the Dr.Seus book maybe belonging to a "Ramsey" who WAS in the house the night of the murder?

Come on,are you serious? Dr. Seuss books and strange things indeed! Take another read of all of the "introduced" docs and evidence. My concern is over what has never been entered as evidence. How much did JR pay you to spray John Andrew as a suspect?

The author seems to be making stuff up, unless he's got another source than the police interviews. PR seems pretty clear about the suitcase in her 1997 interview. She recognises it as John Andrew's. There's no mention of a killer bringing it in to stuff JBR in.From PR's 1997 interview:ST: And I have spoken with Linda, and she’s identified this suitcase as belonging to, well not necessarily belonging to, but a suitcase that she has used and that John Andrew has used, and that John Andrew likely had left at your house.PR: Right.ST: Do you recognize that blue suitcase?PR: Yes.ST: OK. Can you tell me anything about it?PR: Well, just it’s old hard Samsonite or whatever, you know.ST: And what this something that John Andrew let at the 15th Street home while he went to school at CU?PR: Yeah, yeah, that’s to my recollection. Yeah, he moved out here with a bunch of stuff and then he left a lot of stuff t our house that he didn’t want to take to the dorm.

To me, his statement regarding the contents of the suitcase is merely an assertion. It's either true or it isn't. I have no basis by which to say he "seems to be making up stuff". The anonymous post above yours says: All this was in Thomas' book. Gee thanks a lot! The segment you provided of Patsy's 1997 interview with the police doesn't even mention the contents, and I made no mention of a "killer bringing it in to stuff JBR in".

I believe JDI, not an intruder, but does that mean I should just summarily dismiss claims by others because they don't fit my theory?

Geez, Mike. Settle down. When AMD said the author seems to be "making stuff up," he/she was referring to the statement where Patsy said the suitcase didn't belong to anyone in the family. AMD was refuting the author's claim by providing part of Patsy's interview where she says she recognizes the suitcase.

You made no mention of a killer bringing it to stuff JBR's body inside, but the person you quoted did say that.

Also, John Jr.'s alibi had nothing to do with his mother. It was based, as I recall, on his use of an ATM while he was living in another city (Atlanta?) during the time of the murder. The alibi is generally regarded as air-tight.

Sorry Mike. I didn't intend to have a go at your post, but I can see how you read it that way.

I was just questioning the author's assertions.I know you didn't say anything about the killer bringing the suitcase in, it's just that the author said that PR "insisted" the suitcase didn't belong to them. And if that's a distortion, then I question reliability of the rest of what he says.

The anonymous comment wasn't me. I haven't read Thomas' book. Maybe Thomas' book is the source for the author's comments? If it is, I'd be curious when PR said that about the suitcase, as I haven't seen that before.

There's an awful lot of misinformation out there. And once it gets out it tends to be uncritically accepted by most reading it, and disseminated all over the place until it becomes "a known fact." And that goes double if it makes Patsy look suspicious.

I checked Steve Thomas's book and there is no mention in it of Patsy being questioned regarding that suitcase. Not that Thomas's book is free of misinformation either, but not on that topic.

While looking through the book I came across this very interesting bit regarding Lucinda, John's first wife:

"But anytime we mentioned her first ex-husband, she would glance over at her lawyer, then reply, “I’m not going to answer any questions about John Ramsey.”"

John hired attorneys early on for his ex-wife and adult children when he was aware LE wanted to question them, so I can see why Lucinda wasn't allowed to say much.http://www.crimemagazine.com/murder-jonben%C3%A9t-ramsey

This old news is news to me, but likely all the ones who have been entrenched in the case from the beginning were aware of Burke's attorneys suing the Ramseys for non-payment of representing their son.http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/printthread.php?t=9171&pp=12It's just wild to think a family would have attorneys in their lives longer than their daughter was alive.

Hey ya CC, not really. I was just thinking of what other events were possibly happening when the public was unaware of some things. And then my train of thought ran off the rails. Just can't seem to grab the time to really dig in for some in-depth timelines like I'd like to. I help my dad out every day and it seems like so much of me slips away.

Mike G. and Bgh--I know you guys said that you remember hearing JR make the statement about the flashlight on Dr. Phil. I was finally able to find all 3 full episodes of BR's interview, plus the Q & A special. I didn't have time (nor any desire) to watch each episode from start to finish, but I did scroll through each one and watch anytime JR was onscreen. I didn't hear him mention the flashlight at any point.

Here's the link to Part 1 of BR's Dr. Phil interview. From there you can scroll down and click "more videos" for the rest. They're labeled as DRPBR1, DRPBR2, etc.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4t5yrf_drpbr1_tv

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. More than anything, I wanted to post the links to the full episodes in case anyone was interested in watching them.

I have long since thought that the cruise was a tipping point for John. Close quarters in the cabin didn't make for an opportune time for he and Jb to be alone. Perhaps he awoke her that night to molest her one last time to appease himself before Michigan and the cruise. Just a thought....

If my understanding is correct, Doc and some other JDIs think that the ransom note was designed to scare PR and buy time to dispose of JBR's body. One thing that troubles me with this is that a visit to the bank does not seem a very good cover for going out to dump a body.

I presume JR would have to go to the bank in daylight hours. If that's his opportunity to get rid of the body, then cruising the countryside in the daytime greatly increases the risk of him being seen where he shouldn't be.

Why not include instructions for delivering the money at night somewhere? If JR had included delivery/exchange instructions in the note, it would also have bypassed any potential need for faking incoming phone calls from the "kidnappers" (complicated and risky) and given him an excuse to go out under cover of darkness.

If the body's disposal was the priority, I would expect that JR would have thought through a half-decent plan during Christmas night. He's a clever guy and he obviously spent a decent amount of time composing the note, yet the plan for disposal itself seems pretty average to me. I give him a C minus, lol! But maybe I am missing something?

The ransom note doesn't seem clever enough to be written by JR, in my opinion. Actually, I think JR would have written quite a different sort of note. I think he would have written a much more BELIEVABLE note, even if he was writing it to scare Patsy. He would have kept his wider audience in mind (the police) and not just PR.

I also reckon if JR wrote it, the police would never have found the pen, pad and practice notes.

AMD, John was under enormous pressure and pressed for time. He had to work with what he had at that moment. If he could have composed the note, revised it and rewritten it until his heart's content, then he may have included the scenario you proposed (which is why I tend to be of the opinion it wasn't premeditated - although he may have decided as much as a few hours prior to the murder) But he didn't have that kind of time, and he would have been in a panic, no doubt. Under the circumstances, I think his plan was actually rather clever and effective - had he have not underestimated Patsy's response, this whole investigation would have played out very differently. It might have been accepted as a kidnapping all along and we wouldn't be discussing it today.

"I also reckon if JR wrote it, the police would never have found the pen, pad and practice notes."

His plan didn't involve the police coming to the house prior to disposing of his daughter's body. He would have most likely disposed of the practice notes, along with any other incriminating evidence when he dumped JB. But, I am glad you mentioned that point, as that only further indicates Patsy's innocence - by your own admission, the author wouldn't be stupid enough to leave these behind - therefore, if SHE wrote the note, why would SHE not remove the practice notes (along with the pen/pad SHE used that belonged to HER) before calling the police?! Can you answer that for me, perhaps?

Once again, thank you Ms. D. for a very sensible response. The point you make about Patsy is excellent. The same objections would apply to her as to John - unless AMD wants to argue for the intruder theory.

As I see it, the note would have been perfectly adequate for John's needs in every way. First of all, the trip to the bank and the dumping of the body would have involved two separate trips, one in the daytime, of course, but the other at night, under cover of darkness.

And if the note had specified delivery of the ransom to a particular place, that would have locked John into that place, which could have been a problem if he'd encountered other people in the vicinity. This way he could drive around until he found a suitably deserted area to dump the body without being seen.

And the note was NOT directed solely at Patsy. It was intended also for the authorities as well, obviously, as it contains the perfect alibi in case his car happened to be spotted near the place where the body would eventually be found. AND explains why the police would not have been called, due to the warnings.

Either he felt confident enough in his ability to disguise his hand or, if his intention was to destroy the note, he would have first shown it to some friends, who would serve as witnesses, and then make a copy for the benefit of the police.

I give the note an A+, as it would have put him in complete charge of the situation and enabled him to freely improvise in case anything went amiss.

Haha, no I'm not going to argue for the intruder theory Doc! The only thing I feel confident on is that it was *not* IDI!

You make some good points, Ms D. Why did PR leave pen, pad and practice notes? I don't think PR was dumb. My first thought had been that leaving the pen and pad was a mistake made by someone acting on auto-pilot, but I'm not convinced of that so much now.

My best guess is that PR may have thought that using and then leaving the pen and pad inside her own home made it look more like an "inside job". There are elements in the note as well as in the whole scenario (early on at least) which suggest a deliberate attempt to portray the kidnapper as being an insider. Initially I thought that the note took a "scattergun" approach - spread suspicion all over the place with confusing, contradictory elements. But now I wonder whether PR was possibly aiming for a "disguise within a disguise" for the note. She was trying to present the kidnapper as someone with insider knowledge of the family trying to extort money by passing themselves off as a foreign faction. PR realises she can't be too blatant - the kidnapper posing as a faction is not going to say "I know you and your family well" - but she can sprinkle indirect hints in the hope the police go off in that direction. I think perhaps that might explain why JR and PR weren't too fussed initially in trying to provide a point of entry. Bgh got me thinking about that with one of their comments on this blog a few days ago...thanks Bgh :-). The Ramseys were too busy trying to hint at an "insider job" version at first, and an insider could access a key and not need to break in.

So yes, leaving the pen and pad did hint at an insider job, but unfortunately for PR it made it look so much like an inside job that it pointed to her. It was a step too far. She ended up over-selling the insider scenario. I don't think of PR as dumb. I think she was intelligent, but I think that JR would have been more cautious and avoided the risk of leaving the pen and pad. That's just my take on the two of them from reading their interview transcripts and watching bits of their interviews.

I have to say, I definitely haven't got anywhere near a complete theory of what happened. Reading different people's thoughts gives me different ideas. No matter which scenario I come up, though, something ALWAYS puzzles me about it!

Doc, you said, "As I see it, the note would have been perfectly adequate for John's needs in every way. First of all, the trip to the bank and the dumping of the body would have involved two separate trips, one in the daytime, of course, but the other at night, under cover of darkness."

Do you think JR intended to completely conceal his night-time trip with the hope that no-one ever found out about it? Or do you think he would have tried to pretend it was something to do with the money drop-off? I don't quite understand what the plan might have been after JR picks up the money.

I feel I may have read your thoughts about this somewhere on your blog, but I'm not sure where. Feel free to point me in the right direction if you've discussed this already!

Ms D, I'm just thinking through your theory for a moment: JR pops the pen and pad back initially with the intention of gathering them up later for disposal. But then his plan goes awry because PR calls the police. He knows the police and others are on the way.

Shouldn't disposal of the evidence NOW become the top priority, even if he can only temporarily hide them somewhere? Instead, according to the Ramseys' police interviews, JR almost immediately disappears upstairs to get dressed. Then, later, he hands the very notepad he used for crafting the note to the police. Do you think that was deliberate, or a mistake on his part? (I'm not being sarcastic by the way. I'm honestly interested in how others see this. The ransom note notepad being handed to the police by JR is one of the (many) weird elements of this case!)

"But I agree with your premise that John would have written a more comprehensive note"

His note covered all the bases that were integral to his plan in regards to disposal of the body and alibi. I think it was pretty damn clever, actually.

"He would not have left it (the note) at the foot of the spiral staircase for the first one up, his wife, to see it and risk her calling the police."

Actually, that is exactly what he'd do. He needed Patsy to see that note immediately - BEFORE she searched the house for her missing daughter. If you don't believe John would leave the note there for the reasons you cite - why would the intruder?!

I haven't been on here in a while, but my theory is that BDI and the parents covered.

But...so what if BDI. What can happen to him? Everything is covered up for him and he stays out of the spotlight; he basically gets away with it. Yes, he came under scrutiny a few months ago with his interview, but what did that do? Nothing! People ooh'd and aaah'd and said "oh I bet BDI" but really nothing happened. People forget in time. Like everything else in the Ramsey world, it gets brushed under the rug.

When you go to a house with the sole purpose of kidnapping, you don't "forget about the ransom note", come on now.....the mind contorting, mental gymnastics one must employ in order to believe IDI is astounding!

I have some questions for you, Inquisitive, if you wouldn't mind:

If JB was "killed by mistake", why was the strangulation/staging necessary? Firstly, if she was accidentally killed, as you postulated, that means that no strangulation was necessary, as they believed her dead. The fact she was choked to death proves she wasn't killed by accident - there's no *mistake* about twisting a garrote around a person's neck long enough to stop them from breathing. That is more than mere "staging". Which means whoever strangled her KNEW the blow hadn't ended her life. Thus, her murder was intentional, not "a mistake". So there goes that theory.....And why the staging anyway? The intruders let it be known, in no uncertain terms, that it was a kidnapping for ransom - so what purpose did the staging serve?

"Had they asked for a million it would have taken more time to get that amount. Although the Ramsey's were worth a lot of money I doubt he had a million or more sitting in a checking account"

Forget that the kidnappers didn't want to ask for as much as a million dollars.....why didn't they make it a nice, tidy sum, as kidnappers do.....say $150,000? Or even $120,000?

I don't think you've put a lot of thought into this......if any IDI believer had, they wouldn't be IDI. It is illogical to the point of being laughable, I'm sorry, Inquisitive. You were utterly convinced it was Patsy when you first joined this blog. Then you read this blog and decided it was, undoubtedly, John. Then, you watched a CBS special and were very vocal in your opinion it was most certainly Burke, in fact you said it was the ONLY theory that answered all of the doubts you'd had.....so why would anyone here take anything you said seriously now? Every theory you've had has been absolutely solid, and as we know, at least THREE of them can't be right.....your chronic back-and-forth kind of does weaken your argument, I'm sure you can understand why.

Sorry, Inquisitive, I don't doubt that you've put a hell of a thought into this case, everyone here has, that is why we are all so passionate. My point was that this newer theory of yours leaves so many questions unanswered - and presents so many more - that, because you decided upon this scenario after twenty years, that you haven't yet thought it through as well as the other possibilities you entertained. The lack of evidence pointing towards an intruder - whether they be known to the family/had a key etc. - is why the notion of it not being an inside job has virtually been dismissed by almost all in LE, along with the public. That you have so vehemently batted for every, single, side just makes it doubly hard to seriously entertain any theory you put forward. You would, no doubt, have the same problem with anyone else who changed their position so frequently. But, in saying that, I do know you want justice served which is one common goal we (hopefully) all share, and I do enjoy your posts. :)

Quite the contrary, in fact. It is the 911 call that eliminates Patsy as the author of the note. Your own personal bias regarding whether you think she sounded disingenuous or she was going to ask for an ambulance etc. doesn't trump the fact that the person who authored the note clearly didn't want the authorities called.

Removing all bias and speculation from the equation - how does the 911 call serve as evidence she wrote the note? Facts only please.....

My statement is based on facts, not knowledge. Patsy making that 911 call makes the odds of her writing that RN ever smaller than they already are. I cant be bothered posting the facts again as I've already posted them a hundred times before. I will believe pigs fly before I believe Patsy didnt write that RN/was with John when he wrote it.

Everything in your reply was based on emotion, personal bias and assumptions:

"I will believe pigs fly before I believe Patsy didnt write that RN/was with John when he wrote it."

"Either way, Patsy knew. Anything else would be a miracle."

"Patsy making that 911 call makes the odds of her writing that RN ever smaller than they already are."

I agree. The odds are very slim :)But I assume you mean it makes the odds greater, if so, how do you figure that, Zed? How does Patsy making the call increase the odds she wrote the note? If you "can't be bothered posting facts", why are you here? That's what we do.....

I would like to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. I have been absent for quite some time, fighting for my life, but now I am back up to speed. My goal is to stop smoking. It has been a tremendous struggle for me, but I am improving at a steady rate. I am continually impressed with the amount of people commenting on this blog. The passion everyone exudes is an inspiration to me. We need to keep our voices loud. There are details in this case that have been hidden from the public and I think it's time that we are all afforded those facts. Burke Ramsey has unfairly been persecuted over the last few months. The young man never had a chance to live a normal life. Watching him fidget in his seat nervously while McGraw questioned him was painful to witness. No doubt his social awkwardness is connected to the way he was hidden from the public eye for so long. Absolutely tragic. I expect to see new information to be released soon. It has been long overdue. Once again, my best wishes to everyone and God bless.

Welcome back, Hercule. Sounds like you've been through a lot lately, but if it's motivated you to quit smoking then maybe it's for the best in the long run. I too had a very hard time quitting. I'd quit for three weeks but then, when deeply involved in a demanding project, I'd feel an overwhelming need to smoke again. It was the only thing that relaxed me. What saved MY life was, paradoxically enough, an alarming symptom -- whenever I took even a few puffs I'd develop a sore throat. The association between smoking and pain made it very easy for me to quit. It's called negative conditioning and it worked very well for me. Fortunately the sore throats went away completely after I quit and never returned.

I too am impressed with all the many comments and also the passionate debates. This case has definitely struck a nerve for so many people. For me, the trigger was my indignation over the refusal of the parents to fully cooperate with the police. I was never able to get over that -- and it's one of the many reasons I find it impossible to accept any intruder theory. Another factor, of course, is my fascination with a case that has presented itself as such a mystery from the very start. I always saw that as a challenge, which is why I am so willing to spend time debating all the ins and outs, even with those who disagree with me. I sometimes wish there were some smoking gun pointing unequivoclly in one direction, but if that were so, this case wouldn't be so fascinating, would it?

Hey, Hercule and DocG... I'm also trying to quit smoking! It is indeed a very difficult thing to do. Damn good thing I've never tried heroin or meth. I wish you luck, Hercule. I hope we both have success. Minnesota Linda

My thoughts and prayers for you Hercule. My dad recently had his middle lobe of his lung removed, but is still smoking. He claims he doesn't inhale tho, sigh. Have a friend who was treated a year ago for throat cancer and she still smokes. So we know it's not easy for a lot of people to quit.

Happy thanksgiving Ya'll. The ya'll is new to me, since I've recently moved to Texas from Florida. Austin, Texas, so no real need for the phrase but I'm trying it out.

On topic: let's say this crime was premeditated. (I tend to think it was spontaneous) Why create such a complicated scenario with foreign factions and misdirection? Why wouldn't John just wait until the cruise and create an "accident" where jbr "fell off the balcony?" It was 1996 so I feel like it would have been relativity easy to get away with.

That seems unnecessarily risky, on a Disney Cruise crowded with children and their parents.

I don't think it ever crossed his mind that Patsy would not consult him, would not follow his lead as she did in every other aspect of their life together, but rather would instinctively pick up the phone and call for help before he realized what was happening.CC

"I don't think it ever crossed his mind that Patsy would not consult him, would not follow his lead as she did in every other aspect of their life together"

I'm just not seeing that kind of relationship between John and Patsy. On the contrary, Patsy seemed to lead a separate life from John. Do you think she obtained permission from John for all her extra-curricular activities with the pageants and the trips, the church committees, the open house home tours, the art lessons, the involvement with the children's school?

It was opined that everywhere Patsy went she became the one in charge. Not only that, but apparently flew to Bethesda, Maryland for cancer treatments on her own and by herself?

John busy with business. Doesn't sound like Patsy consulted John on anything. She was very independent.

I should specify, she was very independent in that aspect. She was dependent on him for the money, the lifestyle.

I thought the Lifetime movies "Perfect Murder Perfect Town" presented a believable scenario that with Patsy being about 15 years younger than John, really he bowed to her. She had incredible control over him, by using her sexuality and youthfulness. John did not control Patsy. She controlled him.

I think you have it exactly backwards: John lived a separate life from Patsy. He traveled extensively for business and likely encouraged his wife to keep busy. Press of business may also have been his excuse for not accompanying his wife to her cancer treatments; I find it unlikely any woman would choose to undergo them alone. He had a thing for beauty pageants and their participants - see my remarks at the top of this thread.

John wanted to move to Boulder, Patsy wanted to stay in Atlanta; they moved. Patsy wanted a new McMansion out in the flats, John wanted to remodel a house on The Hill; they bought 15th Street. Patsy was tired and wanted to stay home for Christmas, John wanted to go to Charlevoix; they were going. Suzanne Savage, the former babysitter, tells a rather poignant story that concludes (I paraphrase) 'Patsy's job was to keep John from being annoyed.'

I do not think her independent in the least, merely making the best of her BARGAIN.CC

All the available evidence suggests John was the dominant partner in all but domestic and child-rearing matters, and no one has suggested Patsy was frightened or under his thumb - perjorative terms that do not apply to the balance of power often seen in relationships between men and women of different age groups and earning power.CC

You're doing it again. There was no longer a "beautiful mansion" in Atlanta; it had been sold. The mock Tudor on 15th Street and it's massive remodel were entirely John's conception. Patsy did get to decorate.CC

He attended college in Michigan and considered that, rather than Nebraska, home. The Ramseys sold their Atlanta home when they moved to Boulder in 1993, did not buy another until they returned to Atlanta in 1997 after the murder. You were attempting to suggest that they maintained the Atlanta home when they purchased 15th Street, and that Patsy's influence was equal to John's. It was not.CC

CC - or maybe the practice note was thrown out because John was controlling and felt like it was in his nature to handle questions and the lead on JB's death better than Patsy could. That is why John stares at Patsy so intently whenever she spoke publicly, hoping she wouldn't screw up. John would rather just talk himself.

Of course, John let Patsy make the 911 call because she played hysterical mum better than he could play hysyerical dad. If he made that call his acting and lack of emotion would have been picked to shreds. And he knew that.

If Patsy wrote the note and didn't want to incriminate herself as the author, she most certainly would have addressed the note to the BOTH of them so as not to arouse suspicion. She'd already used her own pad and pen for heaven's sake, by addressing the note only to her husband, she may as well have walked up to the police that morning, offered out her hands and said "Here, cuff me".

Thank you CC, Doc, and Linda for your kind words. As soon as I feel up to it, I would like nothing more than to resume my debate on why I think Patsy killed JonBenet. For now, I'll keep reading comments and making notes.

Why Christmas? If it was planned by John or Intruder, why would Xmas be the day, when everyone and their mother is home.

Also, in a newspaper article here in Boulder a few months ago, it talked about a perfectly sized adult butt print outside JBR door. Mary Lacy is the one who discussed this and said everyone there on the scene saw it too. This was one reason why there was thought of an intruder. I am not IDI.

I also like the thought of John leaving the RN on the stairs precisely so PR would not search the house, but he assumed he would get her first.

"Also, in a newspaper article here in Boulder a few months ago, it talked about a perfectly sized adult butt print outside JBR door. Mary Lacy is the one who discussed this and said everyone there on the scene saw it too. This was one reason why there was thought of an intruder. I am not IDI."

I fail to see why a print of someone sitting on the carpet indicates an intruder.

Could be someone in the family waiting to see if she regained consciousness, but instead heard the labored breathing of the throes of death and knew they didn't have all night for this.

What's next- don't forget to get a butt print along with the fingerprints?

Christmas was actually the perfect time. The housekeeper was off, the adult children in Atlanta, nearby CU deserted, emergency services notoriously short-staffed. Or it took John a week to get his guts up, and that was his last opportunity.CC

Wow, how inspiring you all are. Quitting smoking is no easy feat. I never picked up the habit but I think we all have our little addictions and I know smoking is one of the hardest to let go of. So kudos to all of you trying to stop. Hercule! Welcome back. I liked your Patsy theories in the past and vigorous debates. one of my friends still thinks Patsy did all of it, but he says he has mostly based it on what was put out there from day one. It's tempting to go back to that theory (don't worry Miss D, I won't) as some kind of rage issue heat of the moment, plus the fact that she had on the same clothing the next morning but then we run right up against the cord and the amount of staging that I find difficult to believe that a mother could do all of that. What we should try in here is to take on another person's theory - BDI, JDI, PDI IDI and argue it and see if by arguing it it changes our own opinions. Recently started watching "The Fall" again on Netflix (BBC) where they scanned the body at autopsy for touch DNA so apparently it is being used more frequently now than in 1996.

"It's tempting to go back to that theory.....as some kind of rage issue heat of the moment"

I respectfully disagree. Nothing about this crime suggests it was a crime of passion. The strangulation implies the outcome (death) was intentional from the get go and not committed in "the heat of the moment", as too much time had elapsed between the head blow and the garroting - MORE than enough time to attempt to save JB had it merely been an argument that got out of control - an inconvenient fact most IDIs/BDIs can't ever adequately explain away. At any rate, the blow was delivered with enough force that it can be safely assumed it was *most likely* intended to kill her. Every single facet of this crime screams there was nothing accidental about it.

Your opinion only. In my opinion every single facet of this crime screams it was accidental. Based on evidence and facts. But I realise you will never change your mind, even if Burke came out and confessed.

Why wouldn't I change my mind if Burke confessed? I go where the evidence leads me...as far as I'm concerned, there is overwhelming evidence that points to John. If someone else is proven to have committed the crime, then of course, I'll accept that. Why wouldn't I? I'd prefer to be wrong, honestly. Tell me.....if John admitted to the crime, would *you* accept you were wrong, or would you stick to your guns and say he was covering for Patsy and Burke? As far as I'm concerned, I want JB's killer to be punished, I couldn't care less about being "right" or not.

I have to disagree ms D, I think the references to John in the note are thrown in to doubt suspicion on Patsy's part as she was going to be the one to make the call and find the note, whoever wrote the note wanted it to sound like someone who knew about John's business. I have to agree with everything said by zed above, I think for whatever reason both John and patsy were involved in the cover up.

To me it's like there were two murders. One was with the flashlight or some blunt instrument which was used to "stop" or "shut up" the victim. The second was two-fold - to both "finish" what was begun and stage. Also you have literally a "small faction" of possible perpetrators - the three in the house, or one more more outside the house.

Doc, a question. Why do you think John Ramsey would start a few practice sentences and leave one in the pad and throw out the other two? And then why do you think he would go with "John Ramsey" and eliminate the "Mr and Mrs." I believe elsewhere you said because he wanted to be the one in charge but if not that, what else could it be?

I just now realized why Patsy may have looked guilty or like she was hiding things or being untruthful. ...Chemo. She had chemo brain. Many people undergoing chemotherapy have short term memory loss. That may even be the reason she was wearing the same clothes, or have gone along with a broken window story. I am actually not sure if this lends itself more to PDI or JDI but it's something new (for me) to consider.

Yes, "chemo brain" could be a factor for sure. It would have made it much easier for John to convince her of certain things, reminding her that she had "chemo brain" and her memory couldn't be relied on.

Her affect when she said..."you're going down the wrong path buddy" did it for me. She was protecting herself only in that statement, even though she immediately followed it by insisting that neither John nor Burke wrote the letter either.

Just asking a favour: can someone who has a copy of "Death of Innocence" tell me what the Ramseys say about JBR's red turtleneck top? I have been reading that PR at first said that JBR went to bed on the 25th wearing the red turtleneck, but she later said that it was the white star top. It seems a peculiar thing to get wrong, and I'm wondering what is said in DOI?

PR: And she didn’t want to wear the red shirt just because I was wearing it. She wanted to wear the shirt that went with the outfit which was a Gap outfit that I had bought her when we went shopping for her and it was a little white, kind of neck like this, kind of a . . .TT: Kind of a crew neck?PR: . . .crew neck and it had a little, little rhinestone, little kind of sequin kind of star thing on it.TT: Okay.PR: So I just left that on her.

Thanks for that Doc. I had been reading the acandyrose.com website and it quoted a section of Steve Thomas' book regarding the information that the Ramseys told police on the 26th December:"Patsy said JonBenet went to sleep wearing long white underwear and a red turtleneck top."

In later interviews, PR changed that to the white top, and I wondered if anything was said in DOI about the confusion.

ABCNEWS.com's Buck Wolf: "Guest-SydneySkye429 says: "The ransom note stated that they would contact you by a certain time. It has been said that as that time frame passed, neither of you commented on or questioned why there was no contact. If that is true, then why did neither of you react to the fact there was no phone call?

John Ramsey: "The ransom note said: "I will call you tomorrow by 10 a.m." We did not know whether tomorrow was the 27th , which in fact was tomorrow by the time we were reading the note. I was afraid that I would have to wait until the 27th to hear from the kidnapper. The note also said "Your journey will be long, so get plenty of rest." So there was never any conclusive indication that we should expect a call by 10 a.m. on the 26th, and in fact we didn't expect that call for sure by then."

Doc:

It seems John was more afraid of suffering through another twenty four hours waiting for the kidnappers to call than he was afraid that, by calling the police, Patsy may have inadvertantly caused the death of his daughter.

If Burke is telling the truth, what could his parents have been arguing heatedly about that morning? And if they did argue do you think it was before or after Patsy made the call?

A short while back I read a paper written by Michael R. Yerkey "An Investigation Into the Murder of JonBenet Ramsey" 120 pages including bibliography. It is quite comprehensive. He has broken down each suspect including the Ramseys as to statements they made, whether they had an alibi or not, what a possible motive could have been, evidence gathered, handwriting, blood, etc., whether cleared, timelines, etc. It can be found as a pdf downloadable file by typing in his name, or the title of his paper. I do not know who he is, but he presents an interesting synopsis into each person who was suspected and questioned. He also reviews how a juror would analyze evidence presented. He has charts and graphs. He also mentions that Jeff Shapiro who originally believed John the culprit reversed himself after traveling the globe trying to find any evidence whatsoever and found none. He also does not believe Patsy could have done this. But what is interesting is how he analyzes everyone in Jon Benet's immediate circle of known associates, and how it could not have been a random intruder. And, yes, someone with a key, someone she knew. So I do not know who Michael R. Yerkey is, I have tried to google search him, but his paper is very much worth the read.

I read the paper, Inquisitive. Quite lengthy and often repetitive, but I got through a lot of it. Until it became patently obvious what the author's agenda was, not to mention, it is absolutely riddled with spelling errors which was extremely off putting - what happened to proof reading?Anyway, I can't take anything this guy says seriously.He lets his own religious bias cloud his judgement. He states that "religious convictions will be factored into his decision". He notes that on the basis of The Ramseys "Independent Baptist Doctrine", they get a big X (X meaning "not guilty) So, straight off the bat, there's some serious confirmation bias. He is also very quick to judge Bill McReynolds and his wife's "moral character" (suggesting the former had a porn addiction - the definition of which he researched on a Christian website. The latter, because she was "a feminist". Once I read the following, it became clear what this author's agenda was (continued in next post)

"It is the spiritual aspect of Shapiro’schange of heart that is most intriguing to this juror. When God disapproves of a group'sactions (tabloids in this case) He will almost always convert one of that group into aChristian in order to show His omnipotence. Examples of this are almost endless so afew will suffice (in each example the convert leaves his life of sin and begin to serve theLiving God: 1. St. Matthew (tax collector- which was little more than a thief in NewTestament Israel) author of the Gospel of Matthew.2. St. Paul (murderer- persecutor of Christians) author of half the NewTestament.3. John Newton (slave ship master) author of the hymn Amazing Grace.Instrumental in convincing Member of Parliament William Wilberforce tofight for the end of slavery in the British Empire. Wilberforce wassuccessful. Today Amazing Grace is to Protestant Christianity what theStar Spangle Banner is to the United States of America. 4. William Murray (the son of Madalyn Murray O’Hare and the subject ofher law suit in Murray v. Curlett) has continuously lobbied the USCongress to return Christian prayer to the public schools.5. Norma McCorvey (the Roe of Roe v. Wade) is currently fighting to havethe US Supreme Court reverse its decision on abortion.6. Stephen Baldwin (actor and brother of Alec Baldwin) has become acrusader against liberalism, atheism, and pornography after making themhis career in Hollywood.7. Chuck Colson (aide to President Nixon and conspirator in Watergate) hascrusaded for righteous conduct in government and evangelism to those inprison.God seems to like using those who were once evil themselves or once used byevil, to make appoint. There is a saying that goes, “What man calls irony God callsSovereignty.” It would thus be a violation of this juror’s religious beliefs to convict JohnRamsey of murder when it is apparent that God is using his life to impact others forChrist.118 The Bible verse covering such an obligation follows. “When the ways of people (the Ramseys) please the LORD, He makes even theirenemies live at peace with them.” Proverbs 16:7 it is obvious that the Ramseys foundfavor in the eyes of God and thus an almost impeccable case (though misguided) wasdestroyed by the cops’ own pride.119 Pride always proceeds a fall from grace.It is also worth mentioning that the District Attorney could not in good consciencepress charges, nor could his deputy Pete Hofstrom. If that were not enough evidence thatGod had plans for the Ramseys Lou Smit came riding into the case like the cavalry forthe Ramseys. To top it all off God pulls a man out of the lowest of all, legal, professions,(tabloid journalisms) and turns him into the perfect witness for the Ramseys’ defenseteam. Had the Ramseys been Christian and guilty God would not have protected them. Also had they been Christian and the evidence pointed to their guilt this juror would havesent them to the gas chamber (if that were an option). Being born-again does not makeone sinless or incapable of murder but being born again insures God’s provision whenone is wrongly accused. (God will sometimes let wrongly accused believers suffer if itfits into His plans for the salvation of others, if He does allow such a thing He stillprovides the believer with the strength to make it through."

In a nut shell, the author states John Ramsey can't be guilty because he's a Christian, and if he were a "guilty Christian", God "wouldn't have protected him". What an utter load of hogwash....to say that guilty Christians are always prosecuted it is demonstrably false (and more than a little insane). The guy's delusional. His paper is littered with logical fallacies, moral judgments, baseless assertions and unforgivable spelling/grammatical errors - which tells me even he didn't wish to read his b.s a second time. His own theory regarding JB "putting Christmas garland in her hair for her special visit from Santa", before he and his "elf helper" used a key to get in, then tasered JB with the stun gun he carried with him in his red, felt, toy sack, (then, rather than leaving through the door they used to come in, and locking it behind them, they inexplicably left through the Butler's door and left it wide open) almost had me in fits of laughter.

I thought that at first Ms D, that the paper had a religious bias, but I think he was putting the Ramsey's own beliefs, religious beliefs, to a test of sorts. There is a lot of good info in this paper so I'll continue on with your critique.

No, I've read through the entire paper at this point (it was quite a struggle, let me tell you - key players names are continuously misspelled, making me unsure sometimes who he is even referring to - JB's photographer, is his name Simmons or Simons for heaven's sake?! Every paragraph his name was mentioned, the spelling alternated between the two, as if the author was uncertain, so made sure to cover his bases. And is it Burke, or is it Burkey? Mervin Pugh or Marvin Pugh (both versions were mentioned equally)? Correct grammar and spelling may not be such a big deal to some, but a lazy writer strikes me as a lazy investigator) He mentions God several times, quotes Bible passages as though it is some kind of "evidence", cites cases where he believes actual divine intervention has occurred (which I found particularly disturbing, for a couple of reasons I'm not going to mention here, because that will open up a whole other Pandora's Box) and uses his own Christian doctrine to make moral judgments on anyone he deems a worthy suspect. It's actually painful to read. I have never seen so many logical fallacies, presuppositions and baseless assertions in one place at the same time. There is no way this work of fantasy can be his master's degree thesis - no professor would accept so many logical fallacies. Unless, of course, he submitted it and failed miserably, hence why he published it online so that it wasn't a complete failure.....

"The author ties in religious beliefs to exonerated John because he clearly states further on down that that is not the only reason....."

The *only* reason or even a very small reason - religious bias has no place in a serious investigation. And this paper is littered with it - by the author's own admission, it plays a part regarding his conclusion. Why didn't he base his conclusion SOLELY on the data?

I read Chief Kolar's Reddit AMA the other night. At one point he says:

"I don’t believe the strangulation with the cord was a part of staging, and its use constituted an underlying part of the motivation involved in the assault on JBR."

I haven't read Kolar's book, but from what I gather, he believes BDI. However, I don't quite grasp what he's getting at with this statement from his AMA. Any thoughts?

For the record, I don't necessarily agree with Kolar's theory, so no need to waste time trying to convince me he's wrong. I just want to understand where those who were close to the case are coming from. Thanks.

I don't understand what he's getting at either. He believes that Burke hit JB over the head with a flashlight, and her parents covered it up his involvement with some elaborate staging.....if the strangulation was part of the motivation, doesn't that make his theory of it being child's play that got out out of hand null and void?

Well, I'm not sure that I have got it exactly right because Kolar never straight out says it. I think, however, that he believes that BR had major psychological problems. I believe he thinks that the strangulation may have been part of a sexually aggressive act. Kolar spends a segment of his book talking about children diagnosed with the behavioural disorder "Sexual Behavior Problems" or SBP. He points out that, although the acts may be sexual in nature, the motive may not necessarily be gratification; the sexual aggression can be an acting out by the child and can be due to a range of reasons (anger, rage, loneliness, fear, jealousy etc).

I don't think my interpretation can be too far wrong, as Kolar forwarded a document outlining his theory to DA Stan Garnett, and he says about it: "I found the totality of the circumstances comprising the investigative theory to be rather disquieting, and too disturbing, in my opinion, to express in a public forum."

So, yeah, I think Kolar believes it was a lot more serious than just child's play that got out of hand.

I think Kolar's unstated, but clearly implied, BDI theory and the business about "Sexual Behavior Problems" was his way of dealing with the prior sexual abuse of JBR. Steve Thomas had written about the conclusions of the six medical experts finding chronic sexual abuse, but then ignored the entire issue when he propounded his PDI theory. I don't recall - did Kolar allude to those results directly as well? Any theory that does not take the prior abuse into consideration is fundamentally flawed.

Astonishingly, it seems no one involved in the case, including Alex Hunter, had the honesty to face those facts and blame the most logical perpetrator. I can (just barely, as I consider handwriting analysis to be garbage) understand John getting a pass after being ruled out as the author of the RN, but how to explain this?CC

I guess if Kolar spent time discussing children diagnosed with Sexual Behavior Problems it's not a stretch to think he might believe the strangulation was a result of erotic asphyxiation, or something of that nature. I don't know enough about childhood Sexual Behavior Problems or erotic asphyxiation to offer an informed opinion. On the surface, it's not a theory that I could easily embrace.

I have no clue what Kolar could have meant by his oblique statement that the garrote was not part of the staging, H, as if you read my exchange with Ms D upstream, you know I think it was. You're a clear thinker who's had a number of good ideas - what's your take?CC

The first part of his statement seems pretty straightforward. He doesn't believe that "the strangulation with the cord was a part of staging." Kolar stated elsewhere in his AMA that he believes it's possible that the person who delivered the blow to the head and the person who strangled her are one and the same. Therefore, I guess one can surmise that he believes BR strangled her.

I read your comment up-thread to Ms. D., and I agree. I too think the garrote was part of the staging. A while back, I read a very detailed analysis of the garrote written by an online poster who, apparently, has experience with ropes and knots. He, basically, reached the same conclusion that you did. He did not believe that the paintbrush was a functioning mechanism of the garrote. He said that had it been, the ligature marks would not have appeared as they did. The ligature furrow encircles JB's neck, which lead him to believe that the cord was placed around her neck, and the tail ends were crossed and pulled tightly, in order to strangle her. There was much more to his analysis, and overall, it made sense to me. More importantly, it seemed to fit the evidence.

The second half of Kolar's statement is what I don't quite understand. He did offer some insight into his thoughts on the sequence of events.

He said" It is my belief that the fingernail marks on JBR’s throat were created when the collar of her shirt was pulled tight around her neck, at the same time that the triangular shaped bruise was formed on the front her neck. Next came the blow to her head that rendered her unconscious.The garrote could not have been responsible for the triangular bruising, and was applied some period of time later, when JBR was unconscious and unable to struggle against the placement of the cord."

He believes the garrote was applied later, after the head blow when JB was unconscious (I agree.) However, if this is the case, how could strangulation with the cord be an "underlying part of the motivation involved in the assault on JBR."? In other words, how can something (use of the cord) motivate something else that has already taken place (the assault?)

I guess he could consider the strangulation with the cord and the application of the garrote two separate acts. Since her COD was asphyxiation due to strangulation, maybe he believes that "strangulation with the cord" wasn't technically part of the staging. He doesn't specifically state that the "garrote" was not part of staging.

Wildly speculative, I know, but this man confuses me. So much so, that I'm not even sure I buy my own speculation. :)

Hi evej, I did read Kolar's brief question and answer on reddit. He did stop short of many answers though, due to advice of attorney. Okay, Ms D, I'm not going to go through all of your points on statements made in Yerkey's paper on how people can change their minds and reverse themselves, or how the author ties in religious beliefs to exonerated John because he clearly states further on down that that is not the only reason. Or some of the misspelled words or typos. His best case is that Thomas et al developed a bias early on, the infighting with the BPD, all of that contributed to a yes, very bungled case. They have not the resources to reopen this case. He also sites that "Commander Eller kicked the FBI off the case, framing Mason, fighting with the DA and attempted to withhold the remains (and not retest)" plus the BPD not getting outside LE help and then no help from the Ramsey's, contributed to the mess this case became. I also think narrowing down the playing field of suspects and presenting a chart on how certain questions were not followed up on, together with their narrow-minded focus only on what they did have and not what was missing - duct tape, rest of the cord, possibly the blunt instrument used, the cloth used to wipe her down with - took them down one lane and one lane only - blame the parents. And one other little bit - Patsy's hide a key kept in the yard was not found. THe suspects he did profile did not have solid alibis but for Fleet White (they had a houseguest). Read again his suspicions of Bill McReynolds. Former college professor with a degree in literature and journalism. Santa Bill, his wife who wrote a paper on basement abuse, and their own daughter who was kidnapped the same day JB was killed. You have to consider everything if you want to be a proper investigator, and not put blinders on.

you misconstrued the words of the paper as well Ms D. He did not say a red felt bag, in regard to Santa Bill he said the note was well written. He even dissects the note into four parts. He analyzes why Patsy could not have written that note and discusses why others could have (although rates everyone on a scale, the housekeeper with her high school drop out education not likely). You just cherry picked the whole thing, all 120 pages of it? That's a lot are you sure you read all of it? I'm only on page 78. But maybe someone else in here - J? or Hercule? or Zed? would like to have a go at the paper. It's Michael Yerkey: An Investigation Into the Murder of JonBenet Ramsey. And I'll go ahead and forewarn everyone there will be some misspelled words and typos. It's probably someone's master's degree thesis and should have been proofread. However I found it very interesting.

"You misconstrued the words of the paper as well Ms D. He did not say a red felt bag, in regard to Santa Bill he said the note was well written."

I didn't misconstrue anything at all. This is what the author said: "She begins to wait for Santa, while waiting she decides that she is not adequately prepared for his visit and draws an expression of love for him on her left hand. Now she isready. In the meantime she will enjoy her snack and stay warm in her blanket that she has wrapped around herself. She knows that Santa will soon be here, what she doesn’t know isthat his elf is a pervert and not a giving soul. When Santa eventually arrives the large felt bag that he is carrying, surprises her, almost as much as his ability to unlock the door to the house.At this point Santa places a finger to his mouth and whispers to her when he has her attention he zaps her with the stun gun. She screams or perhaps she doesn’t (the neighbor is uncertain). Santa’s helper if he had one is now on the scene.80 Santa then leads hisassistant, who is carrying the unconscious JonBenet to the basement (or perhaps he is doingit himself and is alone). He has been in the house before and knows where the light switchto the basement is, because JonBenet had given him a guided tour a year earlier.Now it was time to visit that room in the basement. He and his assistant (who is also wearing a Santa suit or that of an elf) would have to take turns standing guard but they know the family dog is across the street and the parents are on the third floor. The nine year old son would not be a problem for Santa to deal with if he came down stairs, the outfit would shock him long enough to really shock him with the stun gun. Santa leaves through the Butler’s Kitchen door and carelessly leaves it open. However he and his partner are not worried he knows that you can get away with murder in Boulder."

The author sure takes a lot of liberties, doesn't he? Santa and an accomplice dressed as an elf, and they carried with them a stun gun....it is RIGHT there in black and white, therefore perhaps it is you who is cherry picking. Which, to be fair, as others have pointed out, you have a tendency to do. Quote the bits that suit your argument, leave out the rest.....but we're all probably a little guilty in regards to that. We all have a barrow to push.

"...All 120 pages of it? That's a lot are you sure you read all of it?"

Again, Inquisitive, you've proven you didn't read my entire post.....I explicitly stated I stopped reading once I got to the religious propaganda, as I knew then the author couldn't look at the case objectively. He continuously resorted to the common logical fallacy ("No True Scotsman") and he presumed most of the males John knew were "perverts" (a word he used way too often, without a single, scrap of evidence to back up his claim other than his own Christian proselytizing) How can I take anyone like this guy seriously? Why would I bother to read further? Earlier this morning, I went back and looked at the charts he drew up.....way too much of it is based on speculation and hearsay, therefore irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I've read many other papers on the case which are a lot more compelling than this one.

1) There were no sled tracks found on the driveway or in the backyard.2) Santa Clause expects "cookies and milk" waiting for him on the kitchen table; not bowls of pineapple.3) Santa would not blow his cover by going through a door, and there were no signs of soot displacement in the chimmney.4) No food had been left outside for the reindeer.

I wonder what Linda Arndt is up to these days. I did a Google search on her. The last thing I found was the account of her visiting Patsy just before her death and that "she now lives outside Colorado and is writing a book". That was in 2006. Ten years later and no book, no public comments, or public apearances? Seems strange in light of all the documetaries as of late.

There is a quite lengthy timeline of Mr. White's activities in the Michael Yerkey paper. He was questioned approx. 20 times by police and detectives, had an airtight alibi for the night the murder took place and later became irate over several incidents in the way in which Alex Hunter's office handled the investigation including an argument he had with John over at the Paugh's house - probably having to do with John not cooperating with police? He also felt guilt that he did not see the body when he first opened the wine cellar door. He moved the suitcase and picked up the glass shard and did several other things that seem suspicious but taken in context, do not. Including the following: Dec. 26 1-2 p.m. Fleet touches remains, runs upstairs, back downstairs, follows JR back upstairs, ordered to guard door but instead goes back downstairs and examines the evidence. He also boarded a plane to Atlanta to help clear John Andrew. He was a friend to John up until he read that John told police he knew how to tie complicated knots and possessed black duct tape. John later accused Koby of misleading Fleet by interpreting John's helpfulness as accusatory toward Fleet. Fleet also later clammed up, at first refusing to speak to Grand Jury, then going ahead with it, but was jailed later for not answering a subpoena from a tabloid suit. Fleet had nothing to do with it, bottom line. All of this points though to the way the police had a suspect list, but were not thorough. They took the word of Steve Thomas, who was not an experienced detective, a "desk detective", over the thoughts and investigative work of an experienced investigator in Lou Smit. And you know what? I piled on Patsy too, mislead by tabloids, books, theories, and bias.

Sorry Mike,I've been reading way too much tonight and getting tired. I was reading kolar's responses on reddit and how he answered without directly accusing anyone. Then when you mentioned linda I was still thinking the same way about the whites and linda who if had anything vocal to add to this case, could potentially be a tad scared to say so.

I know. I got off on a tangent! But Fleet White was originally considered on a suspect list. I think Fleet was distressed that the Ramsey's weren't cooperating with police, and possibly viewed their behavior as odd. But from the beginning stated to police that someone tried to hurt this family in the worse possible way. I'm sure that lead police to investigate Access Graphics, all known business associates, John's former mistress, his ex wife, etc. But came up empty.

Fleet White *should* have been disturbed that the Ramseys weren't cooperating with the police. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing - especially those with a murdered child who, allegedly, want her killer found above all else. Fleet also knows that he checked that wine cellar earlier, and saw no body. He also knows that John "discovered" JB's body before turning on a light, in a pitch, black room. Fleet was taking notes that day - odd for someone who was there only to offer moral support to a friend. Something that day - or in the days/weeks/months preceding it - obviously made him suspicious. Did Fleet White actually say that someone was trying to hurt his family? I wasn't aware of that. Why would that be the case if it was an intruder who killed JB - what could they possibly have against Fleet White? The only person that may be worried about what Fleet knew would be John as far as I can see.....

When the DOJ takes power next year, I hope Alex Hunter and the entire criminal justice system in Colorado is brought up on RICO or conspiracy charges, or whatever. The entire Grand Jury transcripts should be released and John Ramsey arrested. Whatever it takes....the feds should get it done!

We didn't start the fireIt was always burning since the world's been turningWe didn't start the fireNo, we didn't light it, but we tried to fight it

Hemingway, Eichmann, Stranger in a Strange LandDylan, Berlin, Bay of Pigs invasionLawrence of Arabia, British BeatlemaniaOle Miss, John Glenn, Liston beats PattersonPope Paul, Malcolm X, British Politician sexJ.F.K. blown away, what else do I have to say?

We didn't start the fireIt was always burning since the world's been turningWe didn't start the fireNo, we didn't light it, but we tried to fight it

Fleet White's biggest beef is not with John Ramsey (though John's also high up on his list no doubt), but with the Boulder authorities, who have refused to release the full dossier on their investigation of one Nancy Krebs, who accused Fleet's father of abusing her when she was a young girl, as part of a sex ring that included both Fleet and John. She has also claimed someone told her that Fleet is the one who killed JonBenet (for details see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/10/innocent-little-nancy-or-moving-finger.html).

Fleet has insisted this woman is a nut case and that her allegations are nonsense. The police seemed to agree, as they didn't pursue any of this after investigating her. But for some reason the full dossier has never been released and this has justifiably driven Fleet up the wall, as he can't refute her accusations without the necessary details, so in his mind this is something that's hanging over his head and calling his reputation into question. I think this is what he is referring to when he says that someone is trying to hurt his family.

Just one more bit of insanity to go along with all the other insanity of this case. Billy Joel, where are you when we need you? :-)

Recently, on a TV program, Patsy says that she recited the night time prayer over JonBenet on that fateful night, "Now I lay me down to sleep...If I should die before I wake...." Has anyone read anything about this nightly ritual, or was it just that particular night? I had never heard that before. Then John talks about how Patsy didn't want to buy (or didn't like) a large doll in a box for JonBenet for a gift because it looked like JonBenet in a casket. Kind of like deja vu. Anyone ever hear about these statements before the recent programs??

I forwarded your e-mail to the BPD. They e-mailed me back an hour later. Based on this new information you provided, Patsy will be indicted posthumously tomorrow. A nationally televised news conference announcing the decision begins at 1:00PM MST.

"If we monitor you getting the money early we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier pickup of your daughter."

This is an odd sentence in the ransom note where the ruthless kidnappers are generously offering flexible arrangements. Variations of the word "early" are used four times in that one sentence. It seemed to me like it was written with some hidden purpose, and I thought at first it might be something to do with providing an opportunity for disposing of JBR's body. I then wrote it off as being meaningless waffle, and I've now changed my view again after doing some more reading.:-)

What would have been one of THE top priorities for JR on the morning of the 26th, knowing that he and his family were in deep trouble, and things were about to get ugly once JBR's body was found? Contact a lawyer ASAP. I'd imagine he would have liked to assemble an army of lawyers.

But calling a lawyer at the crack of dawn on the morning of your daughter's kidnapping is going to look a tad suspicious. However, what if there was a desperate need to make calls EARLY to get money together EARLY so you can deal with the nicely flexible kidnappers who are prepared to change their plans to EARLIER if they see you getting the money EARLIER. A phone call at 7am to your stockbroker/lawyer/friend in Atlanta to arrange money is not necessarily fishy if the ransom note spells out the advantages of being early. The call is now perfectly justified.

In the 1998 interview, Lou Smit asks JR about the sequence of phone calls he makes on the morning of the 26th. The first call JR says he makes is to try to get his pilot. The second call?:

JR:...And then I called Rod (INAUDIBLE) office, he's my stockbroker and friend, to get the money together. And that was probably fairly early, around 7:00, 7:30, around there.

This would be the same Rod Westmoreland who pops up the very next day (the 27th) with the Ramseys at the Fernies and, according to Steve Thomas, introduces himself as an attorney. In Death of Innocence, JR says that: "He [Rod Westmoreland] started questioning the police, hammering away at what I wanted to know." Hmmmm...

The investigators were obviously suspicious of the signs of extremely early "lawyering up", and JR smoothly skirts around the question regarding the presence of another lawyer/friend (Mike Bynum) at the Fernies:

LOU SMIT: Is that the first time that you contacted the lawyer, that they contacted you?JOHN RAMSEY: He was there. He was bringing food over from Pasta Jay's, and just happened to be there when the police were trying to haul us down to the police station, and he said time out.

So when the police visit, JR's got two friends/lawyers who are conveniently there to run interference for him: Mike Bynum (who was just doing food deliveries, apparently) and Rod Westmoreland, one of the first people JR's contacts on the morning of the kidnapping. Interestingly, RW seemed to end up having nothing to do with the money arrangements anyway.

It looks like lawyers jumped into action EXTREMELY early because their investigators were doing the rounds of witnesses on the afternoon of the 26th, just hours after JBR was found, and before the police had even had a chance to do interviews.

I wonder if the trip to the bank might similarly have afforded JR the opportunity to make urgent contact with lawyers in private, if he hadn't been stuck waiting for the kidnappers' call because of the ambiguity of "tomorrow".

I take your point, AMD, but John wrote the ransom note before knowing Patsy would call 911, and before knowing he would need legal help ASAP. I think he threw in all the early/earlier business to give himself flexibility in dealing with the "kidnappers" rather than tying himself to a particular time for the "delivery" and "pickup". If he finished his staging early, he could drive the body up into the mountains early to dispose of it.

Mike Bynum was responsible for John hiring Haddon Morgan & Foreman on the 26th-27th. He and John remained close - in fact, Bynum gave Ramsey an executive position in recent years with his oil company in Utah. Westmoreland sued a poster on a JBR website who accused him of participating directly in JBR'S murder, in fact making cyber law in getting the release of his accusers real name via his internet postings.

Sorry to pile on, but I assume you knew I wouldn't let this kind of mischaracterization and fear mongering about the workings of law enforcement and the judicial system go unchallenged. Suffice it to say that your grasp of due process and your Sixth Amendment rights is as tenuous as your ability to relate facts rather than your fantasies, as you prove again and again, and have done for months.CC

Inq - I stay back because out of respect for all opinions, I think each and every opinion should be shared on this site in spite of that opinion's ridiculous nature. In all of your post's I have never seen any good explanations for the countless number of oddities in this case. Actually, the reason you can't explain them away is because there is NO explanation that makes any logical sense. It would be like voting for a reality star with zero experience to run our country :-) Back to my point....you can ramble all you want, but the reality is none of it is logical.

- WHY did John try to book a flight 45 minutes after his daughters body was found?-WHY did neither JR or PR seem to care whatsoever that the 10am deadline had passed?-WHY can't BR identify a simple bowl of pineapple and then gets very awkward with the detective? -WHY would JR close the basement window and then not tell anybody he did so?-WHY would an intruder stop their plan to make sure JBR was fed pineapple?-IF this intruder had a key like you have stated, then WHY do we have a broken window? IF you are going to claim JR broke it months earlier, then why wasn't that story told shortly after the crime? -WHY didn't the Ramsey's cooperate with the police if innocent?

I could do this for days. These are rhetorical, I honestly don't want to see a response to each question. The reason being is that none of it will make any logical sense. Please don't let me get in your way of posting and I will never comment back to you again. This isn't personal, but I think its an absolute shame that any more time is wasting on something so crazy.

HKH & CC, Just replying again to the discussion that was happening upstream about Kolar's book and his unusual comment in his Reddit AMA. He said, "I don’t believe the strangulation with the cord was a part of staging, and its use constituted an underlying part of the motivation involved in the assault on JBR."

In his book, Kolar seems to think that the sexual assault on JBR happened just before or around the same time as she was strangled. I don't know as he thinks the strangling was erotic asphyxiation. I suspect he thinks there is a sadistic element to the use of the cord, rather than a sexual one. I think he may be saying that the motivation for both the assault and strangling is NOT sexual but instead a sadistic acting out. I think he believes BR psychological problems meant that he had trouble dealing with his overwhelmingly strong emotions. I think he feels that BR's resentment and rage may have building at Christmas because of jealousy towards JBR. Kolar mentions the torn wrapping paper on the Christmas presents in the wine cellar; BR said he tore them on Christmas day, and yet PR seemed to try to cover for him in her 1998 interview by claiming she herself ripped them.

Kolar also mentions the incident when BR hit JBR with a golf club in 1994 and notes that "it took place within a day or two of JonBenet's birthday". He speculates that sibling jealousy and envy might have been involved in both that incident and her murder.

Just for the record, I don't agree with Kolar's theory in its entirety, although I do feel he might have some elements right.

The major problem I have with BDI (not that you subscribe to it AMD, I'm addressing those that do), is that I cannot believe for one second, that after being interrogated and psychologically evaluated, he never slipped up once. There is just no way a nine year old could have stuck to the same, scripted story, then managed to live a relatively normal life for the next twenty years without incident - it just doesn't happen. If a nine year old is capable of garroting his sister, this is only the beginning of a very disturbing, homicidal pattern - something BDIs tend to conveniently ignore.

too many unexplained facts in Doc's theory : 1st i dont buy the fact that JR took a shower and changed clothing during that night and Patsy wearing the same thing the morning after 2nd Doc gives nothing about the teaser's (or something else) spot in the neck of Jonbenet , very important imho 3rd Doc's analysis of writing samples is not convincing at all , i still think after looking carefully those samples that it's still possible to say that Patsy could have wrote this ! 4th if i'm covering up my son with my husband help i would call the police the soonest possible with the body inside the house in the basement well prepared with the garrotte in case the police search the house , so if they find the body NOBODY would think i'm the killer...if not i can dispose the body later...5th it's clear for me that the flashlight killed her first ! 6th nothing proves John Ramsey has ever abused her daughter before...Brooke hit Jonbenet that night hard enough with the flashlight , and parents made the cover up that's all i can see for now until a better theory appears somewhere else

I barely understood a word of that massively long, run on sentence.....I'm not sure why you have such an aversion to punctuation. What is this "teaser" you are referring to? Who's Brooke? One point I want to correct you on is your claim that "it is clear" the flashlight killed JonBenet - the coroner who performed her autopsy disagrees with you, and unless you have a degree in medicine, I'm more inclined to accept his report over yours. The petechial hemorrhages observed in JB's lungs, eyes and heart muscle prove that asphyxiation was the cause of death. The swelling in her cranium shows she lived for up to 45 minutes before being strangled. So, despite it being clear to *you*, you're wrong. "Parents made the cover up that's all i can see for now until a better theory appears somewhere else"

A better theory has appeared, that you believe your own theory makes more sense is almost as disturbing as your grammar ;)

Ms D wrote:"The major problem I have with BDI (not that you subscribe to it AMD, I'm addressing those that do), is that I cannot believe for one second, that after being interrogated and psychologically evaluated, he never slipped up once. There is just no way a nine year old could have stuck to the same, scripted story, then managed to live a relatively normal life for the next twenty years without incident - it just doesn't happen. If a nine year old is capable of garroting his sister, this is only the beginning of a very disturbing, homicidal pattern - something BDIs tend to conveniently ignore."

What interviews have you been watching? Burke slipped up numerous times. Him being his cocky little self and then changing demeanor when he was shown the pineapple. That was a stuff up. So calmly talking about someone plunging a knife into his sister. A normal kid wouldnt be able to do that. Another stuff up. Burke saying that he potentially had secrets but wouldnt tell anyone. Another stuff up. Burke forgetting if it was his pineapple. I mean please...another stuff up. More recently him mentioning the torch in an interview. Another big stuff up.

And since when did he have a normal life as you say? His old man hid him away for his entire life. Nothing normal about it.

And those who believe on BDI so strongly (me being one of them) don't necessarily think he did the garotte, although its possible. If he did, I think it was more him being jealous or "mucking around" and that it was already made prior to that night. I don't believe for a second he meant to kill her that night, hence why he prodded her with his train track trying to get her to wake up. So the whole homicidal pattern you mention means absolutely nothing as far as I'm concerned.

"What interviews have you been watching? Burke slipped up numerous times. Him being his cocky little self and then changing demeanor when he was shown the pineapple."

I am talking about CONFESSING, either deliberately or inadvertently, to his sister's murder, some time in the past twenty years. A "cocky" attitude does NOT indicate guilt. The interrogators would have known within five minutes if a nine year old was guilty of murder. A nine year old hasn't mastered the art of deception yet.....they will always give themselves away, no matter how "cocky" or clever they might be (in fact, the cockier one is, the more likely they are to become careless), and LE would have picked up on this very early on.

"So calmly talking about someone plunging a knife into his sister. A normal kid wouldnt be able to do that."

Sigh, the event you're referring to didn't quite play out that way, but I'll play along, as straw men are all we ever get from you: Unless you're a child psychologist of some sort, I doubt you'd know how a "normal kid" would react after being asked about his sister's murder - I sure as hell don't, but I don't claim to. At any rate, even if his reaction was abnormal, that hardly makes him a killer. And, the fact JB wasn't actually stabbed makes me wonder why, if he was guilty, he wouldn't have just stopped at the re-enacting of hitting her on the head, as that is actually what happened.....indicating to me that Burke probably didn't know how his sister was killed and was honestly going through the possibilities in a matter-of-fact way, as kids tend to do.

"Burke saying that he potentially had secrets but wouldnt tell anyone. Another stuff up."

How is that a "stuff up"? MANY kids say that sort of thing. He said what any nine year old would consider to be perfectly logical - that if he told anyone, it wouldn't be a secret anymore! That does not mean his secrets are evil. That is exactly what I used to say when I was a child.....I loved keeping secrets from grown ups, and not one of my secrets involved any homicidal thoughts/deeds! Or perhaps he knew his father had been molesting JB, which I've always thought was a very real possibility. From my own personal experience, I can tell you, kids won't talk about abuse, that's why it usually continues for years.

"Burke forgetting if it was his pineapple. I mean please...another stuff up."

Look, I'm not even going to address this one again - you refuse to even accept the other, completely harmless alternative, because you WANT him to be guilty. This is not a slip up, the photograph didn't look like pineapple! Or perhaps his father demanded he feign ignorance regarding the pineapple. Either way, it proves NOTHING.

"More recently him mentioning the torch in an interview. Another big stuff up."

Exactly! He was no doubt coached by his father to stick to the same story regarding the flashlight......but he accidentally told the truth to Dr Phil! You know why? Because if you're lying, you FORGET the lies you've told (As John has time and time again) and you inevitably slip up - which, as you've clearly demonstrated above, Burke is prone to doing, correct? Therefore if BDI, I don't think it's feasible to believe that someone as susceptible to slipping up as you'd have us believe Burke is, would have managed to avoid detection all these years, frankly.....

I live in Atlanta, know people who know the Paugh family and Ramseys. Burke had dates and had at least one girlfriend. He attended the Lovett School, which is a selective school that would not have accepted a child with major social issues, no matter how much money the parents have. I know several wealthy families who could not get their child into Lovett for lesser reason. Getting an engineering degree from Purdue is not for the socially maladjusted type of person, either. I know because I am an engineer and I know what it takes to get through the curriculum.

I want Burke to be guilty? Honestly, if you think that I can't take any of your posts seriously.

I think BDI, because to ME, it is the only logical explanation where everything adds up with very few loose ends. No other theory goes close in my opinion.

As to your last sentence above, how exactly did you think Burke was going to let this slip??? That was never going to happen. Oh of course, as Burke was making friends going up he said by mistake, "guess what guys, I accidentally killed my little sister a while back. Its one of the biggest unsolved crimes this century". Burke must have bit his tongue so many times trying to stop thay from accidentally coming out. Hahaha

Enough already about Occam's razor, Zed! BDI may seem the simpler answer to you, obviously many of us find JDI to be a much simpler one. Your notion that two intelligent, college-educated, heretofore law-abiding parents should suddenly throw good sense to the wind and cover for their underage, un-prosecutable son by staging a pedophiliac garroting is far from simple or logical. Ms D makes a valid point, though you refuse to see it: children who display disproportionate rage, homicidal tendencies and the kind of extreme anti-social behavior of which you accuse Burke do not go on to lead blameless lives. And the notion that he was "hidden away" is false on its face: he was kept from the media, sensibly, but went to schools in Atlanta, got an engineering degree from Purdue, has girlfriends, and lives and works in Charlevoix.

Please, let's hear no more about the poor Franciscan friar and his razor. If you need a new cliche, try hoof beats and zebras.CC

Yet, you expect people to believe that one of those "college-educated, heretofore law-abiding parents" DID indeed throw caution to the wind and then molested, garroted, then killed his own daughter? Then that same molesting, murderous father went on to live an ordinary life, remarried, etc. You made our case for us. Thank you.

If you've read Doc's book, this blog, or even just my remarks at the top of this thread, you'd know there's more to John Ramsey than meets the eye. I can tell you for a gold-plated fact that "molesting, murderous fathers" come in Brooks Brothers with good educations as often as they come from a lower demographic. JR'S sense of entitlement when it comes to sex and his strange proclivity for beauty pageants and their participants are documented in non-JDI sources. Those are facts.

CC- Let's be real on this. What do we honestly know about Burke Ramsey? He's had girlfriends.....according to who? It's very clear in his old and new interviews that BR was not a normal kid and is now an awkward man in social situations (Dr. Phil interview). Plus, he went thru a LOT of therapy after the crime under the disguise of him coping with the loss of his sister. Considering FW said all he cared about was his Nintendo when her body wasn't even found yet, I don't think he needed to "cope" with the loss of her. This is the FIRST TIME Burke Ramsey has ever spoken publicly about the loss of his sister.....and it just so happens to be the week before CBS names him as a suspect. What odd timing that is

Well said EG! And yes CC I will preach Occams Razer because more often then not, everything is what it seems!!!

Agree with you too J. Burke said he did the interview at that time because it was "20th year and apparently people were still interested"...clearly nothing to do with CBS which made excellent points with professionals who know much more than anyone on this blog. Burke clearly didnt want to do that interview.

There are a great many examples of a respectable law-abiding citizen throwing caution to the winds and abusing his young daughter while continuing to lead his "respectable" life with no one suspecting what he's done. I don't know of one single example of parents going to such absurd and disgusting lengths to cover up a murderous act by one of their children by staging a kidnapping, complete with vaginal penetration, garrote strangulation and a patently phony "ransom note."

And by the way, Occam's Razor is often misunderstood. It isn't the simplest explanation that is to be preferred, but the simplest explanation consistent with the facts. BDI may be a simple explanation but when all the facts are considered it's obviously absurd.

Doc to be fair, there aren't a whole lot of cases of law-abiding citizens abusing their daughter and then murdering her on Christmas by a head blow, garrote along with a 3 page ransom note. So, for me, stats go out the basement window :-)This case is just beyond unique and hopefully there will never be another one like it.

Of course Burke didn't want to do the interview. I have not the slightest doubt he was pushed by his father, the master manipulator, who I think used his wife's paintbrush and mimicked her handwriting and phraseology in the RN. Anybody but me, that's his credo, and it clearly extends to his awkward son, whom he had to know would appear at a disadvantage. Why let him appear at all knowing his demeanor would do nothing to allay the CBS innuendo? It benefitted no one but John, who appeared articulate, at ease, entirely blameless in comparison.

You and your compatriots have been entirely taken in by CBS, Zed. That show was entertainment only, a ratings grab during Sweeps Week, not serious investigative journalism.CC

And you, J, are believing precisely as John intended you should, entirely taken in by the needless garrote, the pseudo sexual attack and the atypical ransom note. This really was - and continues to be - the smartest guy in the room.CC

"As to your last sentence above, how exactly did you think Burke was going to let this slip??? That was never going to happen. Oh of course, as Burke was making friends going up he said by mistake, "guess what guys, I accidentally killed my little sister a while back."

No, Zed, I suspect that under intense interrogation by LE, Burke would have had no choice but to have cracked. Every other case we know of where young children are guilty of murder, they confessed very early on. LE would have known very quickly into their investigation whether Burke was guilty or not - a homicidal nine year old would certainly be showing very disturbing outward signs - yet we know he was never seriously considered as a suspect.

"Plus every answer you give is too unbelievable in my view. Occams razer! People are just overthinking this case too much."

Are you serious? It is too unbelievable for you to accept that JB was murdered by a sexual predator - one of the leading causes of homicide - but believable that she was mortally wounded by her nine year old brother and her parents decided that the daughter they'd raised for six years didn't mean enough to them to try and save her life, so they garroted her to death instead, penetrated her vagina for good measure, then composed themselves enough to spend the time to write out a detailed, three page ransom note?

If you sincerely believe this is the most logical explanation, even though such a crime/cover up is unprecedented.....then Occam must be rolling in his grave, because you totally missed the mark!

I'll say this Ms D.....I don't think Burke ever faced intense grilling by the investigators. I don't think they ever thought he was a true suspect. I believe BDI, but even under the JDI theory that has taken many shapes, it would be hard to argue that Burke didn't see or hear something, correct? So, even if he didn't do it, Burke has still kept his mouth shut about what he witnessed all these years.IF we can all agree the Ramsey's weren't lying about getting home around 9pm and carrying 2 sleeping kids to bed, AND this is where the story stops. Everything after that has been pure and utter speculation. I am aware some will argue this, but I see no reason whatsoever that Burke would lie about it, so we have Burke downstairs after this point in time. JBR has pineapple in her stomach.....THIS puts Burke and JBR in the same place around the time that she was murdered. I honestly don't know how this is even debatable at this point. THIS is why for me the BDI makes sense. As far as the cover up, I have said this a million times....whether it was staged by John alone, Patsy alone or by John AND Patsy to cover for Burke...IT IS F'D up! The whole staging was completely horrible and messed up. It doesn't make it less true......the staging happened regardless of how crazy or heinous you think it is. There is not a single thing in John Ramsey's past that points to him being capable of this crime, just as there isn't from 9 year old Burke. Though I will argue that Burke might have a dark passenger

Agree evej and J. With the evidence and facts we have, Patsy was involved. That Im certain of. JDI simply holds no merit and that is why it was never considered a viable theory. All the Ramseys were involved.

I don't believe Patsy necessarily would cover for Burke -- I think upon finding out that he could not be prosecuted and she could get him some help, she would opt to lessen the overall pain and trauma to the parents and entire family. I think money and livelihood meant a lot to her. Without it, she could not afford the best and most expensive cancer treatments. She would, I believe, cover for John if she thought it was an accident. However, I find it more likely that she refused to consider John as being involved, though it had to have crossed her mind in later years. By then it was too late. She was dying and she needed to know that Burke would be cared for and have some semblance of a family.

Why is it so outside the realm of possibility that John could have done this alone and Burke and Patsy were none the wiser and didn't hear anything? If I've learned anything from watching the entire series of Forensic Files is that crimes can happen within the house and nobody hears anything. Hell there are episodes where someone is murdered by a gun and kids within the house didn't hear anything.

He probably lied to the woman he was having an affair with, manipulated her as well, and then left her. She was probably mad as hell, after finding out what a liar he is, and was pursuing him for answers. John is not a good person, but he sure has some people fooled!

If there's not a single thing that points to John, where is the thing that points to Patsy? It is still an amazing thing that after all these years, people refuse to consider that good ole Johnny boy committed this crime.

That's true, K. It's also true that he was not, I don't think, a classic pedophile. It seems to me his abuse of JBR was situational, a response to her inappropriate sexualization for those kiddie pageants - and he definitely has a thing for beauty pageants and their participants. Patsy told Linda Hoffman Pugh that she was no longer interested in sex, and that may have contributed as well. CC

You have to do alot of "mental gymnastics" to believe that PR did not help cover up for whatever happened and you have to do twice as many mental gymnastics to believe that PR did not know who did this. The facts are all there from which to draw logic from despite JDI claiming otherwise. The most obvious JDI denial of facts is the timeline which "most likely" puts BR up and awake around or at the same time as JBR. If JR did this by himself, then why would he choose to hit JBR over the head ? That would most likely split her head open and leave blood and dna everywhere. Surely a planned murder would not include splattering JBR's head and possibly brains all over the house.

I sometimes read people's comments that "there was not a history of abuse or pedophilia" therefore they could not possible have done this crime. Ha. That is because they would be locked up otherwise. "Ever hear of John Doe down the street, yeah, he had a little bit of sexual abuse history, but he's good now....And Mrs. Johnson, she had a few charges of physical abuse but she had some therapy and shes normal now too. LOL. People live with their lies and secrets until LE prosecutes them. I went to school with this popular cute guy. He went on to become a notable physician, on Board of Directors, advocate, etc... Married, had kids. Guess what. He is now in jail for the rest of his life for molesting his 5 year old daughter's friend and the young prepubescent children of his other friends and coworkers. Perfectly normal appearance until someone spoke out. just because someone is an attractive, "Christian" with money and no history doesn't make them innocent.

Also, after seeing a 10 year old boy inflict that blow, it sure gives me the opinion that had a grown man inflicted tha blow it would have split JBR's head wide open. So if JDI, then the story would most likely have to be that JR purposely let up on the blow to the head. If he was plannimg on killing JBR then why would he do that ?

Maglites have killed many a people CC. When swung at someones head by a grown adult they become a very viable weapon to kill someone with and when swung from behind on an unsuspecting victim it will most certainly kill. Sure, police do carry them to subdue people with, NOT to swing full force at peoples heads and surely not on an unsuspecting person from behind as that would certainly kill them.

You're making the assumption that it was swung full force, when clearly it was not.

You'll have to show me sources for your insistence that a Mag will "certainly kill" when swung from behind. I saw a police training film years ago that belied that statement; force is all, and the training sergeant emphasized it didn't take much to render someone unconscious. CC

I was not making the assumption that it was swung full force. My assumption was that if an adult male HAD swung it full force that her head would have been split wide open, hence if JR did hit JBR with it then he would have had to have held back or not hit her full force. As far as if a maglite will certainly kill or not, I would think that seeing what a 10 year old can do with it should be proof enough of what would happen if an adult male were to take a swing at a human skull from behind with it.

"It is too unbelievable for you to accept that JB was murdered by a sexual predator - one of the leading causes of homicide - but believable that she was mortally wounded by her nine year old brother and her parents decided that the daughter they'd raised for six years didn't mean enough to them to try and save her life, so they garroted her to death instead ?" Ms D, If it was for sexual purposes then feel free to explain why the head blow came first ? Shouldnt the asphyxiation come first ? Is this some odd new fetish that I have never heard of ? Feel free to explain. "I suspect that under intense interrogation by LE, Burke would have had no choice but to have cracked. Every other case we know of where young children are guilty of murder, they confessed very early on." I have never read or seen anything like this so "us" knowing that would be great. I would love to see your references for this Ms D. "LE would have known very quickly into their investigation whether Burke was guilty or not - a homicidal nine year old would certainly be showing very disturbing outward signs - yet we know he was never seriously considered as a suspect. First off, a 9 yr old who hits his sister with something and kills her and who maybe does se other bad things to her does not make him a homicidal maniac. It would make him a disturbed child, of which there are very many signs that he was exactly that, a disturbed child who, through the counseling he was in before and after JBR's death, may have corrected some disturbing behaviors. Secondly, if LE did not think that BR was never a suspect then why this ? A Boulder grand jury indictment in 1999 accused John and Patsy Ramsey of two counts each of child abuse resulting in death in connection to the first-degree murder of their 6-year-old daughter JonBenét, according to documents released Friday morning.

The charges didn’t directly accuse the Ramseys of killing their daughter. Instead they alleged that the parents permitted JonBenét to be placed in a dangerous situation that led to her death and it accused them of helping whoever killed the girl. Aparently you are thinking of another case with your post Ms D ?

I just discovered an article published in December, 2014 that filled in many gaps in my understanding of this case. In fact, I was nearly ready to leave this site for a while, frustrated by the tremendous amount that has been written on the murder, and the absurdly redundant theories as to who committed it promulgated by the same cast of characters on this site. (Confession--I was the one who posted the Billy Joel song)

I did a cursory search for threads dating back to when the article was released to see if Doc may have made a topic of it. While it appears he didn't, I'd be surprised if those who have followed this case the longest and most assiduously aren't familiar with it and haven't at least alluded to it before. It is the single most informative article I've discovered outlining the relationship between the Ramsey's and the White's, and their respective testimonies as to what each said about the other in the days, weeks, months, and years following the morning of December 26, 1996. It is not a theory on who murdered JoBenet, but it places suspicion back on whom it belongs--John Ramsey.

New and Improved!

Currently available from the Kindle Store

Search This Blog

Things to Come

Things to Come

I just learned the other day of a new book on a case once labeled, "the crime of the century," but now almost completely forgotten. The title: Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? The author: James Kolar, a lead investigator during the reign of DA Mary Lacy, who famously exonerated John and Patsy Ramsey on the basis of a few miniscule fragments of so-called "intruder DNA." Thankfully, Kolar is not among those convinced by that very dubious "evidence." On the contrary, according to an excellent review,New Clues in JonBenet Ramsey Murder, recently published in the Daily Beast, Kolar's book presents strong evidence against the intruder theory -- implying, of course, that the murder was an inside job. I agree.

The publication of this new book, which I promptly ordered as soon as I found out about it, has prompted me, in spite of many misgivings, to once again plunge into the fray of this case, which for too many years, back in the late 90's and early 00's, as a regular poster on several Internet forums, occupied far too much of my attention and proved an endless source of frustration and annoyance, not only to me, but most of my fellow iSleuths. My problem was that I had solved it.